1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Ierofanga [76]
3 years ago
14

HURRY AND ANSWER Which best explains an effect of the Diaspora on Jewish people? They did not keep their religious identity. The

y used traditions to help them identify as a community. They did not develop a sense of shared history. They transitioned to a new religious identity.
History
1 answer:
gladu [14]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

the best answer to this question would be answer choice B) They used traditions to help identify as a community

Explanation:

" 1. The destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and the inability to get to Jerusalem freely, made animal sacrifice impossible. Animal sacrifice was the main way in which Jews could communicate with God and atone for sin. Without physical sacrifice, other ways had to emerge to draw closer to God, and prayer and deeds of lovingkindness were elevated to be the primary ways to connect to God.

2. With the lack of a geographic center, the religion had to focus on a portable icon. Thus, the Torah became the object which could be transported, and reproduced and which represented the symbol of God throughout the world.

3. The destruction of the Temple meant that the priests no longer had a leadership role (let alone any role at all). The rabbis - as teachers - became community leaders.

4. With the dispersion of the Jewish population, different traditions emerged from diverse geographic locations. No central leader unified Judaism; only the Torah and, later, the Talmud, unified the religion.

5. Almost 2/3 of the world's Jewish population were killed by the Romans, and the dispersion of the Jews who remained meant that Jews would be the minority in virtually every place they lived for the next 2000 years.

6. Exile from Israel - except for small communities allowed to remain (e.g. Yavneh) - meant that Israel became more symbolic than real for most Jews. Return to Israel became a focus for the concept of the Messiah.

7. Settlement as a minority throughout the world meant that Jewish law had to be reconciled with the local laws.

8. Geographic dispersion implied that the concept of God, and access to God, could no longer be centralized. A broader concept of God was embraced.

9. A common language (Hebrew, and later Yiddish) enabled Jews to fill particular niches in a dispersed environment."

These are a few additional ways the Diaspora affected the Jews

HOPE THIS HELPS!!!! :)

<3333333333

You might be interested in
WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST
Vikki [24]

Answer:

B.

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What did the sadducees and the pharisees have in common?
Pavel [41]
The answer is
b. they were against the teachings of Jesus
9 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What is your understanding about exclusive property?
aksik [14]

Answer:

Exclusive property implies genuine and individual property that is introduced, utilized, and vital for the activity of an absolved office, and that isn't helper property except if the assistant property excluded cost rises to or surpasses 85 percent of the all out expense of the property.

Indeed, even properties which have been acquired or given by either companion will in any case be essential for the outright network of property. In the event that couples choose to document an appeal for legitimate partition, revocation or separation, the lawful activity will have no impact on the property system except if legal division of properties (where couples are needed to part properties down the middle) has been recorded.

The assumption that the property is intimate alludes to property obtained during the marriage. When there is no appearing concerning when the property was gained by a life partner, the way that the title is in the mate's name means that the property has a place solely with said companion.

Explanation:

The development of a house at intimate cost on the exclusive property of a life partner doesn't naturally make it intimate. The facts confirm that, meanwhile, the intimate association may utilize both the land and building, however it does so not as proprietor but rather as asylum. The responsibility for land stays with the mate to whom it is enlisted until the worth thereof is paid.

4 0
3 years ago
Why do people support the Right to Bear Arms amendment?
EleoNora [17]

Answer:

Explanation:Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).

5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What two questions were at the heart of McCulloch v. Maryland?
AnnyKZ [126]

Answer: the correct answer is B

Explanation: congress having the power to create a national bank was not in any part of the constitution therefore the most important question for the supreme court was whether they have the power or not. In the end, the supreme court stated that yes they do have the power although the power to create a national bank is not in the constitution congress does have the power of necessary and proper clause. the 2n question was whether the state can tax the federal government. and in the end, it was concluded that no state cannot tax a federal government this extends the power of the national government.

8 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • This philosopher would most probably appreciate the concept of the Golden Ratio.
    14·1 answer
  • What is the main difference between primary and secondary sources?
    9·2 answers
  • Who believed they were protected by a covenant? A. Egyptians B. Hebrews C. both
    7·2 answers
  • What event did the gulf of tonkin incident lead up to?
    11·1 answer
  • The fort that later became a center for exploration and settlement activities in oklahoma was fort what
    9·1 answer
  • Which country controlled the origin territory at this time in what year was texas annxed to the us?
    7·1 answer
  • Describe an EOP agency that directly relates to domestic affairs
    13·2 answers
  • The act of achieving peace by giving up something valuable is called
    15·1 answer
  • Why did the war of 1812 happened?
    12·1 answer
  • What ruler united the local tribes and formed the Empire of Mali?
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!